I'm a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and have written for a wide
range of newspapers, magazines and websites. My books include "FDR's Folly," "Bully Boy," "Wilson's War," "Greatest Emancipations," "Risk, Ruin & Riches," "Gnomes of Tokyo" and "The Triumph of Liberty." I graduated from the University of Chicago in economic history. Research has taken me to England, Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, India and China. Milton Friedman wrote that my "analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical." Thomas Sowell: "a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric." David Landes: "Powell is one tough-minded historian, willing to let the chips fall where they may." Paul Johnson: "Jim Powell is a man of great energy, determination, obstinancy and courage, and all these qualities have gone into his work." John Stossel: "A terrific read."

Obama's Plan To Seize Control Of Our Economy And Our Lives

President Obama has made clear that he’s determined to continue pushing his “progressive” agenda, regardless of constitutional limitations on his power. He aims to have his way by issuing more and more executive orders.

The most ominous sign of possible things to come appeared on March 16, 2012, when President Obama signed executive order 13603 about “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

This 10-page document is a blueprint for a federal takeover of the economy that would dwarf the looming Obamacare takeover of the health insurance business. Specifically, Obama’s plan involves seizing control of:

* “All commodities and products that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals”

To be sure, much of this language has appeared in national security executive orders that previous presidents have issued periodically since the beginning of the Cold War.

But more than previous national security executive orders, Obama’s 13603 seems to describe a potentially totalitarian regime obsessed with control over everything. Obama’s executive order makes no effort to justify the destruction of liberty, no effort to explain how amassing totalitarian control would enable government to deal effectively with cyber sabotage, suicide bombings, chemical warfare, nuclear missiles or other possible threats. It’s quite likely there would be greater difficulty responding to threats, since totalitarian regimes suffer from economic chaos, colossal waste, massive corruption and bureaucratic infighting that are inevitable consequences of extreme centralization. Such problems plagued fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, communist China and other regimes. Totalitarian control would probably trigger resistance movements and underground networks like those that developed in Western Europe during the Nazi occupation. Totalitarian control could provoke more political turmoil than there was in the Vietnam War era of the 1960s. There would probably be a serious brain drain as talented people with critical skills escaped to freedom wherever that might be. Canada?

There’s nothing in executive order 13603 about upholding the Constitution or protecting civil liberties.

Obama’s executive order seems to assume that the next war will be like World War II or World War I, where vast armies of unskilled conscripts went at each other. But current trends suggest that future conflicts are more likely to involve smaller numbers of military personnel – highly-trained professionals, perhaps thousands of miles away from a battlefield, who remotely-control drones, pilotless combat helicopters, unmanned ground vehicles, unmanned ships, mobile security robots and related military technologies.

Even if Obama’s 13603 were no different than previous national security executive orders, it’s more worrisome because it was issued by the president who rammed Obamacare and runaway spending bills through Congress, who racked up $5 trillion of debt and surrounded himself with hardcore “progressives” hostile to the private sector and America as we have known it.

In what circumstances, one might ask, would a president try to carry out this audacious plan?

Executive order 13603 says with ominous ambiguity: during “the full spectrum of emergencies.”

Well, the United States is already in a state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 and extended last year by President Obama.

To better understand the potentially explosive impact of his plan, let’s take a tour through the dark world of executive orders, a type of presidential power that most people know little, if anything, about.

Many presidents have pushed to expand their power beyond constitutional limits, particularly during crises. Issuing executive orders is the easiest way to do it. A president doesn’t have to propose an executive order, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes. An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I am very thankful for our health insurance, and even more thankful that we found an affordable one through “Penny Health” online. It has been 6 years that they have not increased my premiums. Having health insurance gives us a peace of mind

You may look at the premium amount and think that there is no way that you can afford it. You cannot afford to be without health insurance! shop around you may find it easy to find an affordable premium, I always find health insurance through “Penny Health” network.

MarkFidelman: You are correct, it’s a different perspective than the media has taken thus far….except for on all those inane conspiracy websites which claim that “9-11 was an Israeli Intelligence op that worked” and that there are “Forced labor FEMA camps where folks are imprisoned and worked to death” and so forth. The reason most people don’t take that route with their stories is that those writers aren’t clinically insane, greedsick, paranoid schitzophrenic types like this article’s author obviously must be. How mad a person must be to print such entrail! Most editors of financial magazines aren’t ridiculous enough to give those types a platfom from which to spew their ravings, either. Very sad that you are an apologist for this. One cannot write “I am Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated, kneel to me.” and call it “OP/ED”: nutcases are nutcases. :-(

Mattc666 Gawd you must be the most arrogant condescending little putz. Why do you not confine your criticisms to the article Instead of marshaling even one argument you merely spit out “Cato Institute” and “Fox News viewers”. Ad hominem attacks are desperate bids of the clueless. It is the casting of aspersions on the author of the argument as the means to attack the argument. Thus the “Cato” comment. But what is this additional swipe at “Fox News viewers”? Is there a name for the rhetorical device of damning an idea by naming its defenders, and simultaneously attacking them! So mattc666: Do you despise “Fox News Viewers” because they presumably would agree with this article, or do you despise this article because “Fox New viewers presumably would agree with it? I am confused.

Better late than never, I guess. THIS Forbes reader AND Fox News viewer begs to differ with your factually devoid sophistry. The fact that you apparently have an effective spell checker does not lend credence to your “comment.”

Perhaps you would be better served Sir to reserve future blogging on “Yahoo!.”